P L D 1976 Lahore 216 (PLP)

This is an application under section 491, Cr. P. C. for the release of three persons whose names are (1) Mohammad Ashraf ; (2) his wife Mst. Naseeman Begum (or Seeman Begum) ; and (3) Sughran Bibi wife of one Barkat Ali. It was alleged in the petition that the aforesaid detenus were being illegally detained by Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I. Police Station Ganda Singh Wala, Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore. The petition came up before me on 29-4-1975 when I admitted it to a regular hearing and issued notice to the respondent. I also deputed a bailiff of this Court to recover and produce the detenus. As a matter of precaution I asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 100 as advance costs to be paid to the respondent A. S. I. in case the petition turned out to be false or incorrect. Those costs were deposited and the process of this Court was then issued. The bailiff went to Police Station Ganda Singh Wala and found the three detenus having been lodged in certain quarters adjacent to the Police Station. The detenus were in that way brought before the Court and I recorded their statements.

2. From the material produced in Court it has transpired that there stands registered a case as per F. I. R. No. 12, dated 7-3-1975 at Police Station Ganda Singh Wala for offences under section 363/366, P. P. C., against (1) Muhammad Ashraf ; (2) Mst. Seeman (Naseeman) ; (3) Mst. Sughran ; (4) Muhammad Rafiq ; and another or others for having abducted Mst. Sakina alias Mst. Bashiran, a minor daughter of one Muhammad Boota. (A copy of the F. I. R. has been placed on record). Actually the first informant is Mohammad Boota himself. So far the matter appears to be quite simple but certain interesting revelations were made in the statements of the detenus as well as Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I. The detenus deposed that they had been apprehended by Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I., a month and three quarters ago and that they were being detained in the Police Station without any authority and that they had never been produced during all this period before any Magistrate or any Court of law. Leaving the controversial facts apart for the present, Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I., has admitted in his statement that he is detaining these persons, according to him, for the last 15 days, and he has further conceded that he had not produced these detenus before any Magistrate during all this period. This will show that the custody of these detenus in the Police Station was without lawful authority and the A. S. I. was detaining them illegally. Muhammad Ashraf, detenu, lifted the curtain from all this mystery and disclosed that actually what had happened was that the real abductor Muhammad Rafiq along with his fiance had been recovered by Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I., but unfortunately the said abductor escaped from his custody along with the handcuff and it was to put pressure on the detenus that they were being detained in this manner in the Police Station as "hostages" so that they should some how or the other get the aforesaid abductor produced or recovered. All this statement was made by Muhammad Ashraf in the presence of Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I., who was given due opportunity to cross-examine him. Habib Shah Khan made his own statement in which he categorically denied the escape of any accused person from his custody. General suggestions were put to him whether he had gone to Gujranwala and whether he had made report of his arrival in any of the Police Stations in Gujranwala and whether he had taken any handcuff from any Police Station for the arrest of the abductor. The A. S. I. vehemently denied that he had gone to Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala or that he had ever obtained any handcuff from any Police Station in Gujranwala District. The case was at this stage when the Court rose for the tea-break. However, a little before rising for the tea-break I sent for the Registrar of this Court and asked him to find out on telephone from authorities in Gujranwala and particularly Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala whether Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I. had approached the Police Station aforesaid and whether he had obtained any handcuff from there. The Registrar reported in black and white that according to report No. 45 dated the 13th March 1975 in the roznamcha one handcuff was issued to Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I., Police Station Ganda Singh Wala and according to the record its return was not entered till 30th March 1975. After tea-break the Court re-assembled. I brought it to the notice of Habib Shah Khan A. S. I., that he should consider the matter dispassionately and if he was making any false statement it was time for him to look after himself. At this Habib Shah Khan broke down and came out with what he called the true version, which reads as follows :- "Now I remember that I had sent Barkat Ali, Constable, to Police Station Sadar to bring handcuff which the said constable did bring from that Police Station. I admit that the real state of affairs is that actually the accused had escaped and had run away along with that handcuff: Whatever statement I have made in my examination -in-chief or in the portion prior hereto is all incorrect. I now admit that the handcuff was in that way stolen and taken away by the accused when he escaped from my custody on 19-3-1975 and that the aforesaid handcuff has still not been recovered. However, another act of handcuff was deposited in Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala. I purchased that set of handcuffs from a shop at Nicholson Road. Lahore, which generally supplies "uniforms". No number, however, was inscribed on that handcuff which I purchased from a shop at Nicholson Road, Lahore. As a matter of fact no numbers are inscribed on handcuffs. I do not know correctly but I think that the aforesaid shop supplies handcuffs to the Provincial Government. I purchased that handcuff at a cost of Rs.

30. I incurred that cost personally. The person whose name has been mentioned as Khadim by Muhammad Ashraf no doubt did contact me on that date. I had purchased the handcuff from Nicholson Road, Lahore However the aforesaid Khadim then went back. He had contacted me on my way to Lahore. After the handcuff had been purchased the aforesaid Khadim went back. I concede that the detenus have been detained by me in the Police Station for the last 15 days. During this period, however, I never produced them before any Magistrate as has been already stared by me. I have never recorded any zimni regarding the escape of the accused nor about the loss of handcuff nor I have mentioned the Incident of having purchased a new handcuff from the Bazar. I am definite that I got the handcuff from Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala on the 19th March 1975 and deposited a duplicate of the same on the same date. It means that I came to Lahore on the same day, purchased a new handcuff and deposited the same back again on the same date in Police Station Sadar. I am quite definite about these dates which I have mentioned and as it is an incident of one and the same day, therefore, I am not in any mistake in that respect. (The witness has been given time to think over this matter so as to be certain whether it is an occurrence of the same date). I never reported the incident of "escape" of the abductor in any Police Station or in any Police quarters. I lodged no report anywhere. I have now recollected that I deposited the handcuff in Police Station Sadar Gujranwala on the 20th March 1975. C. Q.-The report which has been received from Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala says that you had not deposited that handcuff till the 30th March 1975. What have you to state in that respect? Ans.-This is incorrect. That handcuff, as got by me in the form of duplicate, was deposited by me in Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala on the 20th March 1975." The statement of Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I. needs no detailed comments as it is self-speaking. According to this statement the abductor had escaped from the custody of Habib Shah Khan. He has not lodged any report about that incident in any quarters. Rather he kept this matter secret and has tried to destroy the evidence by coming to Lahore, purchasing another handcuff from a shop at Nicholson Road, Lahore, represented the same to be the original handcuff which bad earlier been issued to him from Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala and allegedly deposited the same in the relevant Police Station. (I call it `allegedly', because, verification on this aspect has yet to be made by the authorities concerned). He is positive that he received the handcuff on the 19th March 1975 and re-deposited the same on the 20th March 1975 whereas according to the information received from Gujranwala no deposit had been made till the 30th March 1975 the actual date on which it was allegedly deposited is still not known. The A. S. I. it appears, has been guilty of negligence, inefficiency and dereliction from duty apart from penal offences which his acts of omission and commission may amount to. He prepared incorrect, incomplete and false record and made false statement in this Court and stuck to the same with contumacy till the true information from Gujranwala was received through the Registrar which really broke him down. He had deposed that it was on 25-4-1975 that Muhammad Ashraf detenu himself appeared before him and also brought the two ladies -(detenus)-with him and even though they were all mentioned as accused in the relevant F.

1. R. he did not arrest them. For this purpose he wanted to rely upon a zimni in his file but this plea is falsified by another part of his deposition where he has stated that it was on 25-4-1975 that Muhammad Ashraf detenu appeared before him and that he gave him Annexure `A', which is an authority letter authorising the arrest of other accused including the abductor. This letter reads as follows :- P. S. G. S. Wala 20-4-75 This letter bears the seal of the Police Station and is signed by Khurshid Alam, Moharrir A. S.

1. It was admitted to be correct by Habib.Shah Khan, respondent. This letter expose the myth of Muhammad Ashraf having allegedly gone to Habib Shah Khan on 25-4-1975, because, it is dated 20-4-1975. Habib Shah Khan was asked to explain the discrepancy but he replied "I cannot explain it." Later on, he, however, conceded that Muhammad Ashraf and other two ladies-(detenus)-were being kept by him in the Police Station for the last 15 days and that he had not produced them before any Magistrate. In the overall circumstances of the case when the credit of Habib Shah Khan stands duly shaken I will not accept this plea and would rather accept the statements of the detenus that they had been detained in the Police Station for over a month and three quarters which would, otherwise correspond to or fit in the period or time when the abductor escaped from the custody of the police and whereafter he kept the present detenus as hostages for their recovery. The custody of the detenus in the Police Station, in these circumstances, is without lawful authority opposed obviously as it is against the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, learned counsel for the detenus, has presented in Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 1682-B/75 praying for bail of the detenus. In view of what has been written above, I have released the detenus on bail by passing an order in that application. The present petition thus stands disposed of and fructified in this manner. As Habib Shah Khan, A. S. 1. has not reported the matter as mentioned above anywhere in any quarter of Police or otherwise, let a copy of this order be sent to the Inspector-General of Police and the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, alongwith a copy of the complete statement of Habib Shah Khan, A. S. L, for information and such action which they may deem fit in accordance with law.

3. The security deposited by the petitioner should be refunded to him immediately. Habib Shah Khan, A. S. I., is burdened with costs of Rs. 200 which he should pay to the petitioner. The A. S. I. has submitted that he does not have the costs with him at the moment. He wants time to re-pay the same. Let him re-pay the same by or before the 2nd May 1975. S. Q. Petition accepted.